Yes to Fairer Votes?

Just a quick post, but the graphic below shows the fallacy of AV being a more proportional system, something that many will infer from its self-titled campaign of 'Yes to Fairer Votes'.

The graphs show the results of the 1997 general election in percentage of votes (left) and percentage of seats (right). On the right-hand graph, the lighter shades demonstrate the results under AV - Labour getting even more seats (nearly 70 per cent of all seats), and the Conservatives' 30 percent of the vote accounting for just 15 per cent of the seats, or 96 constituencies. Only the Lib Dems' seat share is more proportional - is it any wonder they are the only party united in favour of AV?

P.S. Calculations of what 1997 AV result would have been are from here.

AV campaign intensifies in increasingly bad-tempered and divisive contest

Twelve months after the general election, British election machines are once again moving up through the gears. 5th May sees a plethora of different contests across the country:

AV referendum
Scottish Parliament
Welsh Assembly
Some English councils/unitary authorities/mayoral contests
Leicester South parliamentary by-election

It is curious to note, and one cannot help but do so, that the only national vote - whether or not the UK should change its method of electing MPs from the First Past the Post system (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) - is becoming increasingly ill-tempered. Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has, in today's Observer, issued a strong rebuke to what he termed the "scaremongering" of the NO campaign.

Lord Ashdown also described the tactics of Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi as "tawdry" and "indefensible". Warsi's cabinet colleague, environment secretary Chris Huhne, has already been compared to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

I will not here go into the merits of a YES or NO vote. What is becoming apparent, however, is the relatively small role of Labour leader Ed Miliband in the campaign. Admittedly, he did cause a minor stir after apparently refusing to share a stage with Nick Clegg, but ever since he has taken a back seat role.

This may turn out to be a wise move from Miliband. His detractors might argue that he is not a strong enough leader to take a more active role in the campaign, and with his net approval rating at -19 per cent according to today's YouGov poll, he is far from an automatic vote-winner.

In addition, his party is split almost down the middle on the referendum, making it hard for Miliband to push the issue without the risk of causing splits within the party. Labour grandees Lord Prescott, David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett favour a NO vote, while most of the shadow cabinet have endorsed a YES vote.

Miliband, though, will be pleased to see members of the government attacking each other over the issue, and with Vince Cable's attack on the PM's immigration plans, cracks within the coalition are perhaps starting to emerge. The coalition government has insisted that it will not be fatally wounded whatever the referendum result in May.

But Nick Clegg will be aware that this was his flagship policy from the coalition. The Lib Dems will be demoralised should NO prevail, and Ashdown's remarks display a palpable sense of worry within Cowley Street. Ed Miliband may be backing YES, but, from a political perspective, he might not be too disheartened by a NO vote. He will be able to sit back and take advantage of the likely repercussions.

As the Browne Report is unveiled, Durham students express their views on the issue of tuition fees

AW, 4th year, St Aidan’s, Chemistry:

I think it’s really terrible – I don’t know how my brother is going to pay for his education. I’m glad I have got through before the changes are implemented. If Durham had cost more than other universities, I wouldn’t have been able to come here; my sister has ended up staying at home because of the cost of university.



CL, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Archaeology:

It might work in a purist economic world, but the education of the individual is of value to society as a whole on more than just an economic level.



DCC, 3rd year, Grey, Politics:

I think that the Browne Report would represent an irreversible change in the affordability and the social mobility of our education system. The changes will create a tiered higher education system, with the debt burden caused by going to a prestigious universities being potentially off-putting to students from poorer backgrounds. I hope that Durham will strengthen its bursary and outreach programmes in order to mitigate against this.



CT, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Politics:

It reduces education to a personal investment. It puts the entire cost of education onto an individual and neglects the role of both society and industry in funding education. I am very concerned about the idea of variable fees.



MV, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Law:

The ever-expanding format of the country’s university system is weakening the quality of our institutions and courses. Therefore an uncapped tuition fee is one way of reducing the numbers in the university system and return quality to British education.



Not everyone is concerned though:

Anonymous, Van Mildert:

I haven’t heard of the report. Is it written by Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code?